AuthorTopic: M Leica  Camera or Lenses? (Read 1454589 times)

Michael, actually it's a little bit of both. I like the gestalt of the M series bodies, both film and digital. There is a tactile thingie going on also. Possibly I am, like the rangefinder, outdated! Perhaps Leica is seeing the writing on the wall as they have indicated an announcement soon on a new mirrorless system, possibly (?) using M glass. But the bottom line is its always been about the glass, daddyo !

At 50% / 50% split between RF body and just M lens aficionados, there's an interesting story here.

BTW, I met with Leica at the PhotoPlus show in New York yesterday and asked a senior executive for any insights into why there was a 3  6 month waiting list for virtually every M lens. I was told that even though they had almost doubled lens production over the past year they still can't keep up with demand. Certainly an enviable position for any company.

M9s continue to sell very well, and with every M9 purchaser buying an average of two new lenses with their camera, there's even more pressure on demand.

maybe it is not a story between RF and lenses , the M9 body is wonderful , but for me (and I guess for many) I'd like to see a M10 as simple and built like the M9 but with one central AF or/and live view x10

It is the form factor Michael. I'm not so bothered about the rangefinder as such, but the small system size, the simplicity, the variety of lenses available all contribute to why I like the M9 (and all the previous M cameras I have had).

I'm not even bothered about using the (technically) best lenses, I prefer lenses with some character, but there is something for everybody whether you use Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander etc. And that I consider the M9 a very good landscape camera AND a very good reportage camera, so I don't need to chop and change the camera system, just pack a different set of lenses. Not wanting to go all the way back to my past and use large format again, and still wanting to use digital, but not wanting the complications and sheer phaff of lugging a DSLR around, the M9 is the perfect simple device for making photographs. I have had my M9 for two years now, and I already had some lenses, but for the first time in many years I have not had GAS for another new camera.

maybe it is not a story between RF and lenses , the M9 body is wonderful , but for me (and I guess for many) I'd like to see a M10 as simple and built like the M9 but with one central AF or/and live view x10

For me, the M9 makes sense for the compactness, simplicity of operation and incredible image quality from the combination of the lenses and the sensor. Ideal travel camera - which is a big point for me, because I tend to do most of my photography while traveling. Plus I really like how the files look great straight out of the camera, without much need for PP to bring them to life. Having said this, I miss AF (even though I've become quite proficient with the RF) and, in the future, would ideally like to use an AF version of the Lux 50 Asph with an FF camera producing the same image quality like the M9, but with ultra-fast face detection /nearest eye recognition (like EP3). A high-res EVF would also be useful, especially if it allowed me to use wide lenses (like my 24 Elmarit) without the silly accessory finder and with accurate framing.... So no, the RF is definitely not why I use the M9, I could say I use it despite the RF.In the meantime, I am eyeing the S2 (in full knowledge that it is not a bigger M9) - AF, accurate framing with wide lenses, incredible image quality straight from the camera...

Agree, I don't really need the rangefinder in a "rangefinder style" camera, BUT it has to be as compact and user-friendly and simple in handling as the M9. So no live-view, no need to fumble with buttons nor menus while focusing, no cluttering of the viewer etc..

Good morning, afternoon or evening,The replies to Michael's request make for very interesting reading. As does a column written by Rosie DiManno published by the Toronto Star today : http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1078488--dimanno-the-tactile-experience-of-newspapers-sacrificed-for-digital-drossRosie is not a Luddite -- she uses planes to travel and whatever modern equipment she need to file her columns. In a way her column brings me to clarify why I am so enthralled to be using an M9 with M lenses: the M is a familiar tool that I learned to use over the decades to help me convey my ideas photographically. In the end I produced silver on paper images and now ink on paper images that people may see and connect with. There was continuing changes: film emulsions changed, usually for the better, the M6 has a built-in light meter, and now the M9 records light digitally; ten or twenty years from now digital will also become a historical process and be replaced by I know not what but eager to see. I have photographed since the mid-sixties and am still trying to get good at it. Making good photographs is hard enough without having to also figure out how to make mediocre videos or whatever other magical things that the camera to be released next week may make possible. In my case, an M9 or a camera similar to it lets me improve my work mainly because it is familiar and gives me all the control I need: shutter speed, ISO, aperture, ease of focus; and the design allows for a solid handling.Jean-Michel

Logged

fredjeang

IMO, despite being an M fan, we have a camera that's been designed in a time and technology available completly different than the current reality, with a visual culture and outputs also very different.

It's good to keep respect for the tradition and learn from it, it's bad to be stucked in it, like we could be stucked into past memories.

Things have to move on.

The question IMO is this: what would be a contemporary M with the current tech keeping the M philosophy when they invent it in a remote time I wasn't born? The M9 is the path? I don't think so indeed.

One of the terrain the M excels, is photojournalism. And photojournalism today is also motion and tomorrow it will be a lot motion. So if one of the M essence is reportage-journalism, the M_x will have to have video capabilities. Motion is not just about doing Godard or hollywood prods.

I΄m a wedding photographer in Sweden, shooting mainly with 5DII and primeLs. I bought the M9 for it΄s high image quality in a small package, but also since a had my eyes on the 50mm noctilux lens: http://dagnellfoto.se/lang/en/2011/09/leica-m9-noctilux-m-50mm-f0-95-asph-destination-wedding-photographer/I΄ve come to appreciate the rangefinder experience after 1.5 years of usage and my intention is to add some more lenses, like 28cron ASPH and 21 summilux ASPH(which will serve as a compliment and backup to my canon). For my usage I would like to se faster write speed to the card(and buffer) and a better screen. Apart from that i΄m very satisfied with the camera.

In the US (not that much in Europe), the M has been vastly adopted by landscape and fine-arts photographers. And the reason is obvious and understandable: reduced package with the closest output of a MF camera. So it was easy for the "landscapers" who generally need resolution and fine details, to adopt the Leica but lighten their bags.

Ironically, the M essence is not really at first targeting those kind of users. It came by accident because there is nothing similar today on the market.

So it's not surprising that people who need resolution and adopted the M, want more megapixels as they generally follow the MF backs evolutions.

If it wasn't for the inherent shortcomings - others see these as advantages - associated with rangefinders I'd be using the M9 now.

I totally agree! What is great about the M9? it is a small light package with excellent image quality due to lenses and sensor, and it has a 'minimal' user interface: nice uncluttered direct access to shutter speed etc.But composing and setting focus is not so great. Imagine using a high quality OLED for a viewfinder with focus peaking (as in the NEX7) -- that would basically fix all the troubles in one go. Or perhaps a solution like the Fuji X100 with still an optical viewfinder but an overlayed display of camera settings and focus peaking. I am pretty sure that is what the M10 will be about. And I know Leica won't go that far, but if you add fast contrast detect autofocus, you could just as well bring out lenses with autofocus based on a ultrasonic motor (i.e. USM, SWM, SSM, etc)

If it wasn't for the inherent shortcomings - others see these as advantages - associated with rangefinders I'd be using the M9 now.

I've come very close to buying an M system for many years now but hesitate because of the cost of the M9 body and it's limitations. I am guessing the high cost of the body is from the amazing workmanship in the old fashioned rangefinder system - as in a fine Swiss watch. I think Leica should get their teammate Panasonic to build a Leica branded M mount body with full size CMOS sensor, live view and digital viewfinder. Right now I'm waiting for the Nex7 with hopes of super high image quality with M mount glass. At the moment I lug around my Canon 1Ds3 and a set of Leica R lenses, so you can see my motivation for getting the same or even better quality in a much smaller and lighter package.

upon reading how many want the next M to have AF, Video and other things, I'm tempted to note that there are many cameras with those accoutrements. If those are deemed necessary, by all means buy one and be done. But to destroy the simplicity of the M for the sake of those features would severely detract from the factors most of us enjoy

does anyone really think an M9 can be graced with all those features (and M-lenses too) and retain the form factor and ease of handling? Not to mention reliability and trauma resistance?

AF M-lenses??? Hard to envision them being anything as compact and easy to carry as the current crop. I know all of you know how much plastic goes into AF lenses, unless of course you want their weights quoted in Kg.

If you want L-images and all those features, get an S2... but that's a horse of a very different color!

« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 07:05:50 PM by allegretto »

Logged

fredjeang

I've come very close to buying an M system for many years now but hesitate because of the cost of the M9 body and it's limitations. I am guessing the high cost of the body is from the amazing workmanship in the old fashioned rangefinder system - as in a fine Swiss watch. I think Leica should get their teammate Panasonic to build a Leica branded M mount body with full size CMOS sensor, live view and digital viewfinder. Right now I'm waiting for the Nex7 with hopes of super high image quality with M mount glass. At the moment I lug around my Canon 1Ds3 and a set of Leica R lenses, so you can see my motivation for getting the same or even better quality in a much smaller and lighter package.

FF Canon with R glasses work very well, but M glasses on smaller sensors like the Pana and the Sony aren't giving the excelence they deliver on a M body. There is no significant advantage to use M lenses on a GH2 for ex compared to the top-line m4/3. This fact have been noticed many times by a lot of trustable experienced photographers.

I wouldn't bet a stellar IQ increment using expensive M glasses on a Nex except at full aperture.

expect the sensors to become more exotic, smaller, lower-noise etc. Expect the boxes, lenses and focusing systems to change (imagine "glass" that changes its IR in response to electrical signals to focus instantly etc...) but don't expect the loss of "digital". Nature is Digital, the Known Universe is Digital...

Logged

telyt

... Right now I'm waiting for the Nex7 with hopes of super high image quality with M mount glass. At the moment I lug around my Canon 1Ds3 and a set of Leica R lenses, so you can see my motivation for getting the same or even better quality in a much smaller and lighter package.

The NEX 7 has a lot going for it. A compact responsive body for my Leica-R and Nikon AIS lenses with focus peaking certainly has my attention, but until it's adequately tested and proven otherwise I'm going to assume that a 12-bit AA-filtered sensor's output isn't a match for the output from the 16-bit no-AA-filtered DMR regardless of the number of pixels. I'd like to see what Leica's compact EVIL camera will be. I'm hoping for a user interface like the S2 and image quality at least as good as the DMR.